Apparently his parents have been subjected to abuse as well - which should not be allowed to happen. Whatever this soldier may/may not have done it
is wrong to pillory his parents.

Dreamweaver

posted on 9-6-2014 at 10:16

Moved to "the other side" for reasons becoming apparent....

scholar

posted on 9-6-2014 at 00:16

George W. Bush never started any war--Saddam violated the truce which suspended the war which Saddam began with the invasion of Kuwait, and
hostilities resumed. As the facts came out later, Saddam had a secret arrangement with the French to use their UN Security Council veto to block any
new resolution, so he thought he could get away with breaking the truce. But, no new resolution was needed--he had violated resolutions which had
already been made.

The mission of removing Saddam and his thugs from control and governance WAS accomplished before the banner was placed. You don't get to choose a
different mission and then complain about the banner because it doesn't match the mission which you would have set. Oh, I guess you could, if you
want to make believe you have the authority to set the mission.

But, back to the original topic--Redwolf, how do you feel about trading the 5 highest al Quaeda terrorists in Gitmo for a U.S. Army deserter?

Redwolf5150

posted on 8-6-2014 at 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by scholar

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
I think that nothing the American government does at that level is haphazard.

The highest leadership has such a high opinion of himself that he decided it was OK to lie about his health care plan to get support for it, even when
several of his advisers warned him that he wasn't telling the truth. Haphazard is his trademark.

As opposed to his predecessor who started a second war on false pretenses then had the GAUL to say "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of an
aircraft carrier?

Looks like nothing here has changed. Might as well go back on "vacation" from the board again.

And people wonder why Giron left?

scholar

posted on 8-6-2014 at 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
Broken record...

If you refer to the scratched records that would keep repeating the same groove--as many times as the President keeps making the same kind of mistake,
the same kind of reaction to it is appropriate.

If the President had the humility to learn from those who have better knowledge and judgement, and if he would improve in his job performance, we
could see personal and professional growth. And, truly, he has listened to good military advice more than I would have expected (e.g. he has allowed
the military to accomplish some significant harm to terrorist enemies with drone attacks). It is sad that, when he makes bad decisions, he has been
known to minimize the problem, blame others, or lie about it.

Originally posted by marymary100
I think that nothing the American government does at that level is haphazard.

The highest leadership has such a high opinion of himself that he decided it was OK to lie about his health care plan to get support for it, even when
several of his advisers warned him that he wasn't telling the truth. Haphazard is his trademark.

marymary100

posted on 6-6-2014 at 06:18

I think that nothing the American government does at that level is haphazard. There will be some value in the exchange for America, perhaps not in the
return of their own but in the release of one or more that they are returning. Unless of course All Americans in government are as stupid as
Republicans would have us believe. When you factor in the military intelligence, there must be some reason why America wanted the exchange.

The article says that, for most of our history, the return of deserters was sought mainly so they could be shot or hanged.

Nimuae

posted on 5-6-2014 at 08:02

It is alleged that he had deserted before and was a known risk. One wonders if perhaps he has been brainwashed by the taliban and his subsequent
release has a hidden agenda. Still, only those who were there will know the truth.

This story grows by the day. His home town has just cancelled his homecoming celebration.

John Barnes

posted on 3-6-2014 at 22:23

Five of his compatriots have stood up and condemned him as a traitor, He deserted his post took off his uniform and left his weapon, if true then
the president needs a head check, it sounds like desertion to me. Also to home arm chair pundits if you have never been in a guerrilla style war its
best not pass your opinion, the Taliban are 6th century thinking people with no compunction to any Geneva convention. Look how the Vietcong treat
their Allied prisoners also the Japanese, the Asian mind set is not the same as ours in the West

LSemmens

posted on 2-6-2014 at 14:21

Arguably Guantanamo should not be still in use, but the issue, of course, is not so much as natural justice, because those being held there are being
held as prisoners of war. If they are prisoners of war, there is no need for trial as they have broken no laws, per. se. and, once the war is over,
they are released. The problem they have, though, is that America is not "At War" with another sovereign nation and, as such, the "enemy" cannot
cede to them and have their soldiers returned. It is a grey area, should those who are plotting violence against a regime be detained or should we
(royal 'we', here) wait until they attack and then detain those we catch? If they were plotting, and it is not on American (or British) soil, there
is no way we can legally detain them except in a theatre of war, and only as prisoners of said war.

Badgergirl

posted on 2-6-2014 at 12:34

Quote:

Originally posted by scholar

Quote:

Originally posted by Badgergirl
Guantanamo is a disgrace to the civilized world and it's continued existence makes a mockery of any decent American's idea of "Justice"

If we had anything useful on the prisoners in Guantanamo, they would have been tried and sentenced by now anyway.

Not so.

When war is waged against us, we are not under obligation to get court convictions, under criminal law statutes, while providing lawyers for the enemy
combatants. It is a very common and lawful practice to shoot the enemy who is shooting at you, and to capture and detain those who throw down their
arms.

And, while warfare is still being conducted, the attackers can lawfully and reasonably kept in captivity. Who in their right minds would give up
someone, for no reason, who would return to the fight to kill again? (I say "for no reason" because I understand the idea of prisoner exchanges for
prisoners of comparable value.)

I didn't say it wasn't legal, but I still maintain it's a disgraceful and unjust way to behave.

Most of the war has been shockingly amoral.

Capture, Detain and PUT ON TRIAL....that's justice.

scholar

posted on 1-6-2014 at 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Badgergirl
Guantanamo is a disgrace to the civilized world and it's continued existence makes a mockery of any decent American's idea of "Justice"

If we had anything useful on the prisoners in Guantanamo, they would have been tried and sentenced by now anyway.

Not so.

When war is waged against us, we are not under obligation to get court convictions, under criminal law statutes, while providing lawyers for the enemy
combatants. It is a very common and lawful practice to shoot the enemy who is shooting at you, and to capture and detain those who throw down their
arms.

And, while warfare is still being conducted, the attackers can lawfully and reasonably kept in captivity. Who in their right minds would give up
someone, for no reason, who would return to the fight to kill again? (I say "for no reason" because I understand the idea of prisoner exchanges for
prisoners of comparable value.)

Badgergirl

posted on 1-6-2014 at 18:13

Guantanamo is a disgrace to the civilized world and it's continued existence makes a mockery of any decent American's idea of "Justice"

If we had anything useful on the prisoners in Guantanamo, they would have been tried and sentenced by now anyway.